Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F5|section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --[[User:B-bot|B-bot]] ([[User talk:B-bot|talk]]) 17:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F5|section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --[[User:B-bot|B-bot]] ([[User talk:B-bot|talk]]) 17:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For having the rare trait of remaining cool when explaining the same policies, especially the verifiability policy, to new users over and over again, often without tailwind and in parallel. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 19:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Welcome to my talk page! Hoping you are well! Please note that all talks here are to follow are to follow the guidelines pointed about by {{Talk header}} above or I will not respond to your inquiry, and it will receive an automatic removal from my talk page. In addition to the header above, please ensure that you title your new section appropriately. Do not edit my page to add and / or remove what you feel you should; if such is done, I will automatically revert the edit(s) without warning — no questions or hesitations about it. If I begin a discussion on your talk page, please do not continue it on this one; keep it to one talk page, to avoid confusion, etc. Any personal attacks and/or insults thrown at me or any other editor are automatically deleted, and, if need be, will receive a report to the appropriate noticeboard. Please remember to follow good practice and avoid unacceptable behaviour. Thank you!
Before we get into an edit war, I am trying to understand your reasoning. Maybe we can come to a compromise. Mikkos was legally Valentin's father. Until this year, he was believed to be his biological father. Mikkos took legal responsibility for raising him until he died. He was a father to him and the character's entire existence was based on him having a relationship with Mikkos as a father. I feel it would be inappropriate not to include Mikkos. --Nk3play2my buzz02:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's inappropriate for him to be listed. The characters never interacted, aside from a pre-retconned storyline. To me, it'd be the same thing if we listed every single step-parent of a soap character (pre-introduction) — which I believe is over-kill anyway. Soap articles and editors — overall — believe themselves to be "special" amongst editors at Wikipedia, and we're not. Including Mikkos is not appropriate, nor right for the character's article. Not to mention, Mikkos did not raise Valentin — he disowned him at birth, which is now likely due to the fact he was Helena's son and not his own. So, including him serves zero purpose, aside from the previous back story, which is now null due to story re-writing. livelikemusictalk!16:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we might need to revisit including Mikkos as a stepfather. It's complicated and confusing because of rewrites, BUT, those rewrites have been attributed to Helena lying, which we know is in character for her. If Helena provided the original story about Valentin, we'd have to question it. According to Valentin's confrontation with Helena's ghost (who'd have no reason to lie) on the Valentine's Day episode, Mikkos not only provided for Valentin, paying for his education, and "raising him as his own," though away from the family (in boarding school), he took special interest in Valentin because he felt Valentin could give him the heir Stavros or Stefan couldn't due to the unfaithful women in their lives. The conversation today would imply that Valentin was born after Stavros, before Stefan, and would've become the oldest living male heir should anything have happened to Stavros, which it originally did in 1983. When Helena found out about the possibility that Mikkos could potentially leave everything to Valentin, she told Mikkos the truth to hurt him, and Mikkos created the codicil, but died before he could publicly disinherit Valentin. So according to this version of the backstory, Mikkos did raise Valentin, and even favored him, much like Helena favored Stavros. Maybe we could even consider including Mikkos as Valentin's adoptive father or foster father because according to today's episode, he did raise Valentin as his own. Nk3play2my buzz00:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm probably a bit blind today. It may be obvious to you, and perhaps I just need to look more carefully. Would you mind taking a moment to tell me which of the WP:3RRNO exceptions apply to the reverts at List of General Hospital cast members?
If none apply and this is a mistake, please quickly confirm that no further reverts will be made.
@ToBeFree: Of course. The fourth bullet applies; the user has received warnings and reverts, both from myself and another editor, to refrain from their mass-removal, which has no basis of function, especially without discussion. However, said-user is refusing to acknowledge the warnings or attempts to discuss. Instead, they'd rather mass-remove information, without cause, despite being reverted. Clearly, said-user is not here to edit constructively towards the benefit of the encyclopedia, and I've gone ahead and reported them for such vandalism to the page. And given their reverts to my reports, it's clear they are not here to edit appropriately even more. livelikemusictalk!22:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: Well, I am genuinely sorry for the misundestanding, then. The user was warned, reverted and attempts to begin discuss existed, by myself and another editor. They clearly were not here to edit in the best interest of civility, especially given their editing today. Once again, I do apologize, however, I did (in assume in best faith) so as I did feel that their edits were not constructive, as it was a mass-removal/blanking of information, without a single discussion. livelikemusictalk!22:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Livelikemusic. I have once received a stern 3RR warning by Oshwah; I know the strange feeling for being warned for good edits. The user has been blocked for edit warring now; I just need to be careful not to give unfair preference to established users. As vandalism is defined as intentional damage, and as the user might have been disruptively trying to push their preferred version in good faith, I assumed such good faith instead. I'd also argue that I'm a well-intentioned user. Again, I may be overlooking additional details, but let's perhaps agree that "obvious" is a bit far-fetched. Other exceptions like the 7th point did not seem to apply to the situation – if at all, exception 7 could have applied to the removal, not the re-addition.
In almost all cases, there is no need for an immediate fourth revert. Someone else will notice and fix the problem; there is no deadline. The situation can be reported at WP:ANEW, and I personally like the following essay: Wikipedia:Responding to a failure to discuss.
There now seems to be consensus for the reverts. In a way, one could say "you have reverted to the correct revision", or also "you are right". If the other user disagrees, it's now their turn to start a proper discussion on the talk page. The other user's edits have been clearly disruptive.
I am thus not criticizing your preferred version of the article. I am not criticizing the content of your edits. My only concerns have been the following:
That's all I had been worried about; your edits by themselves are perfectly fine and much welcomed. Even your reverts have been helpful, just the number of them went up a bit too quickly. :)
Thanks for the report, by the way: There was a clear need for immediate administrative action, and it's good that the main warrior has been quickly blocked to prevent further disruption.
@ToBeFree: The only reason I use the word "obvious" is from their history on the page, especially following the suggestion (via another member) to use the talk page to begin a discussion over their desired edits. Again, I do apologize for the rapid-revert and the level at which they were done. Sometimes, admittedly, we do get into the "heat of the moment," and tend to forget to step back. I just worry about their inventiable return tomorrow, following their block. Again, I apologize for the rapid-state of the reverts, and for the cause of concern. Thank you for reaching out, as well; it doesn't often happen such as this in a situation, and it's refreshing. livelikemusictalk!22:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god, I didn't even notice. Thanks for pointing this out. To make sure that any unblock appeal has to address this issue as well, I have now added a note below the block template. No worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: You're welcome; I didn't even notice the vandalism until I went to my main page to visit another page — and I noticed all of my user boxes had changed. Thought I was at someone else's page for a moment, and got very concerned. livelikemusictalk!01:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Coastside2: "Again?" Please don't come to my page and make accusatory statements against me and make it persona, which it wasn't, especially following this inappropriate edit summary — which citing links in edit summaries are also not acceptable on Wikipedia. Because, if you had come to me, I would've easily explained I mistakenly forgot to re-format the credits. Shit happens on Wikipedia. We're not all perfect human beings. Second of all, you never cited Apple Music in the article, nor did you format them correctly, which is why they were changed and properly cited. Have a great day! livelikemusictalk!14:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cover used on article
Just wanted to get your opinion on a user using a low-quality screenshot of a video posted to Trainor's social media as the cover used for her single on Evil Twin (Meghan Trainor song). Technically, Billboard referred to the image with the two shots of Trainor as its "cover art" here, but the "cover art" is not available on any streaming service I can find, and it seems inappropriate to use a low-quality screenshot with uneven dimensions to me. The user previously added a re-upload of the album art is its cover and seems intent on just having an image there. Thoughts? The user, Another Believer, has now cropped out "Midnight", which doesn't really make any difference on the concerns to me. Ss11222:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss112: I've seen this done on other pages by other editors, such as "Watermelon Sugar," with claims that these images are acceptable and appropriate for use, simply because "other articles" do that; in my opinion, they are not, especially if streaming platforms are not using them. If you go to Spotify or Tidal, they use the album cover image, and not the teaser used on social media. Not to mention, the image they uploaded was clearly edited from what Trainor provided on social media. It just looks bad, and I feel like users are taking things a bit far. In today's day of media—especially since the end of physical single releases—single cover artwork seems to be mute. Not every single song receives its own artwork. I also want to know where it says that screen captured images from videos are acceptable as single cover artwork? Not to mention, they're not even following the NFCC rules. livelikemusictalk!14:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why this IP or IPs are so obsessed with using the other TBA template. Or why they are so sure that "Bounce Back" will definitely be on the next album. Considering that the coronavirus has delayed work on the album, I think we can safely assume that the new album won't be released until November at the earliest, by which time "Bounce Back" will be the best part of a year and a half old... it would be pretty poor to include it on an album at that stage, and at best, I can't see it being anything more than a bonus track on a deluxe version, similar to "Only You". But if this IP insists on altering the discography twice a day for the next seven months until the album's release, we might have to consider asking for page protection. Richard3120 (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120: I find it hilarious. Everyone assumes that LM6 is the album title because of the previous album, which is laughable. I don't see them doing that, any way. Fans will believe what they want to believe; it was never stated that "Bounce Back" was ever for an album. That was something fans assumed. As for the page, it is already protected... yet these edits keep getting through. We might need to request a chance in protection level, because this is going to be fucking ridiculous! Also, hope you are well with the current state of this fucked up world! livelikemusictalk!18:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even believe they think it really will be the title of the next album... they just want it to be noted that a new album is being recorded and is on the way. Well, yeah, that's true of every artist, unless they're retired or dead – their entire job is to make new music. I'm not even a big fan of the group (I'm 50 next month, for God's sake, I'm hardly their target audience) but I keep an eye on the LM articles due to the high level of stanning going on with them. Thank you, and hope you stay safe and well too. Richard3120 (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lk95: Um, it was not your edit I was referring to, nor did I refer to it was an "ignorant" edit. So, I'm kind of wondering why you'd believe it was geared your way? livelikemusictalk!19:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, you changed the list styles I introduced to the article when I created it and you changed nothing else so I thought it was directed at me as the article hasn't been edited by that many people so far. Sorry for the confusion. -- Lk9519:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Executive producers do not belong in the infobox. That goes in the cases where someone is an executive producer but do not have actual producer credits in any songs. But Swift has PRODUCER credits in every single song she had ever release since her second album. She co-produced every single song. She's a record producer, not just an executive producer. Just letting you know.
@BawinV: I understand that, but we only list producers who produced a song, which Swift did, and, in that case, she is listed in alphabetical order like everyone else. I am not negating her inclusion in the infobox — that was not the issue taken, but when you move her to the top of the list, when it is listed alphabetically, and use the excuse "executive producer," it is going to be reverted, due to the request of {{Infobox album}}. I also do not need a history lesson on Swift. If you bothered to read my edit summary — which I suspect you did not, since you felt the need to leave this message — you would have seen me explain all of this. ;-) livelikemusictalk!19:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An SPI case was a bit harsh and WP:BITEy for an IP editor who created an article, then created an account and continued to edit the article. A {{uw-login}} was more appropriate (and there are editors who think even that is too harsh). Happy editing, Cabayi (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Large images
I wasn't making them large. Just when I was about to reduce the size, you pop screaming "DONT MAKE THEM LARGE". it's the default size. maybe blame Wikipedia. and I was about to customize it, and reduce the size.
@BawinV: You are the one who keeps putting image images in the files; there is no need to be putting them in. I removed the sizes prior, you reverted, put the image back in last night and resized, which made the images obnoxiously large, when they did not need those size parameters. You edited the file's information, which originally included a Flickr source, which was not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. And you've done it again. I recommend you read up on Wikipedia's policies on image uploads. You are uploading images that do not belong on Wikipedia, as well as images that fail to meet the content for non-free content. livelikemusic(TALK!)13:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is 0 pictures of Swift performing anything, so I do think there is a need to add a single picture. Explain why you *think* there is no need for a picture? I don't understand what's wrong in adding an image? also, I've read the guidelines now and I understand how it works. I didn't understand it before. Now I do, and I've uploaded a non-free image that has been released to be used for educational purposes. Thank you. BawinV (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BawinV: First, no need to ping me on my own talk page. Secondly, it has nothing to do with there being no images of Swift performing. The second image you have uploaded is copyrighted to its original owner, which means it cannot be uploaded. Images found online violate the policy linked above, and continued upload of them can actually lead to many consequences, which could include loss of privilege to upload images and a block from account if seen as disruptive. The propping of Swift across multiple pages is troublesome, and it is now extending to violation policies, which is alarming. livelikemusic(TALK!)13:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing editors of IP hopping
Hi there. I started to draft the following comment, but then you replied to me at the IP editors page: 'I drafted: "Just a quick drive-by comment to point out (having seen your WP:AIV complaint) that an IPv6 address used by one editor is likely to change regularly, through no fault of theirs. This is the /64 range, and you should add /64 to the end of an IPv6 address when you view special contributions. I pass no comment on your recent complaint at WP:AIV about User:2601:48:8100:9740:F469:9EC6:7F1A:5D80, but one person on an IPv6 address who edits an article across multiple days is quite likely to find their address has changed, and that they have no control over this. Just add /64 to the url at special contributions. Thus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:48:8100:9740:F469:9EC6:7F1A:5D80/64 lets you see the contributions of just one person."
I then saw your reply to me at the IP editors talk page (see this diff). I was rather surprised that they blanked it with the comment about us vandalising it. But hey ho - they're entitled to do that. I did notice they were quite belligerent in their comments towards one or two other editors in their edit summaries. But I'm still not passing comment on either of your actions (as it's quite late here in the UK, and it's been a long day for me) So, if you think the IP editor has acted inappropriately (across the /64 range) you might be better off reporting your concerns at WP:ANI. You will need clear diffs, and be prepared for your own edits to be looked at too. For myself, your AIV report isn't sufficiently clear cut for me to block another editor without investing a lot of time that I can't commit to right now. I don't believe in assuming that all IP editors are bad apples hope, so wasn't personally willing to take your complaint at face value, as it needed more checking than I can offer you. I do hope this helps a bit. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes: Unfortunately, there seems to be a bit of harassment and Wikihounding happening, which is unfortunate to see. Given their continued changing in IP usage, even if blocked, it is clear they would evade and move onto the next. I will take your words into account; thank you for reaching out to me, directly. I was going to do the same, but, figured you would have seen the ping I left (and eventually seen the page-blank by a different /64 range). livelikemusic(TALK!)00:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you. I'm sorry I could do no more yesterday than just make the one comment to you. I see the IP has now been blocked. I'd not spotted the blanking was done by a separate IP address range, but am glad another admin was able to put in the time to investigate properly (which I was unable to). I quick check just now does suggest that not all the addresses on the /64 range have actually been blocked, so maybe you could keep an eye out for any further trouble from them. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is no problem. There is no need to apologize. Time zones are a bitch sometimes, ha! As for the IP range, yes, they were blocked, and I was notified by another admin that should they evade, I should report that, and, if that does not stop them, then more is to be done. I am hoping this ends, as it is simply unacceptable. Thank you for again reaching out Nick! I appreciate it! livelikemusic(TALK!)12:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Livelikemusic. You reported User:JovGeo at AIV, but I'm not seeing the vandalism. If you can identify and document a long-term problem, consider reporting it at WP:ANI. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Glory (Britney Spears album)
Hello, I stand by your point that the deluxe and original Glory cover should be the main one on the article. And on a side note, I haven’t found any sources whatsoever citing Mood Ring as a single from the album. What do you think about it? Thanks. – Artmanha (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I'm a fairly new user and want to learn as much as I can to get the ropes of the website. I wanted to ask you about your comment "Do not ignore the notes + unexplained change for Metacritic location." I don't want to be causing more problems on the article than I am helping with so I would like to make sure which notes I ignored so I can look out for them in the future, and what you mean about changing the location. (And please do let me know if this isn't the appropriate place to contact another user/if there's a personal message option or something like that) Best, Mightbeaquarian (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mightbeaquarian: First off, welcome to Wikipedia. Each of the notes are hidden at the end of each cited source, which state to update the "accessdate" of each source when updating a score, which you did do here, but failed to do here. Also, in this edit (same as first above), you changed the location from "United States" to "Lebanon" for no explicit reason. Metacritic's location is United States, and that is where it should remain. As for contact, talk pages are the proper place for contact, though, [some] editors do have email enabled, though, that is usually for off-site contact for discussions that do not belong on Wikipedia. Best wishes in your future editing. livelikemusic(TALK!)17:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Noted, and apologies for the second one, I thought "location" meant the editor's location when they accessed the webpage. Retrospectively that was quite silly of me. Best, Mightbeaquarian (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Love On Tour 'Tour Dates' section
Hi, it's been awhile since I've been on editing on here. I noticed the new formatting you did on Love On Tour for the tour table as each region is its own section. Is there a change that I've not been aware of when I've been inactive? I'm just curious because I almost prematurely undid your work. Thanks in advance. Musicpoplover12 (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I wasn't able to respond to earlier posts on my talk page. I'm probably the worst admin to approach regarding vandalism to music pages, as it's a sphere I know nothing about. But clearly if Band A produces a record, and later renames as Band B, our Wikipedia page should state the record was produced by Band A, even though the wikilink from Band A takes them to the page that has been renamed as Band B.
I haven't checked for IP hopping, but it's always best to AGF unless it's absolutely clear the edits are the same as previous disruptive editors. I'm also sorry about the abuse - I've now blocked them across the entire /64 range for WP:HARASSMENT, as the Project should not be willing to tolerate that kind of abuse, even in the heat of the moment. In future it would help to have a link to a specific page to demonstrate repeated IP hopping and disruptive editing. That can be reported to WP:AIV, or specific pages can be semi-protected against varying non-auto-confirmed editors. For threats and abuse, it's WP:ANI that an editor can be reported to. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes: Exactly! And even WP:NOTBROKEN states this. And, it's not your fault the abuse happened. You acted as swiftly as you could, and that is what matters. I had the report at WP:AIV, and just continued to add-in as things just progressively went to shit. Thank you, again, Nick for your swift response and your courtesy outreach! You and the other Admins deal with so much on the encyclopedia, that shit like this should not even be an issue! Thank you, again! livelikemusic(TALK!)15:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Jared Padalecki as Sam Winchester.png
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Jared Padalecki as Sam Winchester.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
In regards to your two recent reports at AIV which I declined in this edit, please remember that AIV only handles cases that are obvious enough to take action without any investigation past looking at the diffs. That's because there's no discussion allowed, which means that neither the accused editor nor the rest of the Wikipedia community has any chance to rebut the accusation or weigh in on the problem. So, admins are only supposed to take action on cases where there is no reasonable rebuttal or defense possible.
If I have to have knowledge of the subject of the article in order to know whether or not the edit is legitimate, then AIV is not the right place to report the problem editing. For example, Ganeishiahfo looks like they are trying to legitimately improve the article in question. Sure, they're not using edit summaries, maybe they're not following the MOS, but it looks like good-faith editing at a casual glance. Problems like failing to cite a source, not adhering to the manual of style, or failure to follow typical editing etiquette like using edit summaries, are all things that should be ideally worked out with the user in question, not just blocking them summarily. That makes all of these problem edits a much better fit for other behavior notice boards. –Darkwind (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brightest Blue - Just a quick one
Hope you're okay Livelikemusic?
Just wanted to clarify re this edit, there isn't a clear consensus at Talk:Brightest_Blue#Inclusion_of_pre-released_singles. It seems to be that you're acting on the assumption that what you've said is the only right/correct option even though a few of us (including myself) have given valid arguments too. I think the duck test applies with singles. There isn't an overwhelming response to the discussion nor a consensus that certain songs are or are not singles. Labels will often demote songs that they deemed didn't perform well enough etc. Another reason for including songs previously released, is it impacts positively on an album's streaming sales/units as album tracks also contribute to overall album units shifted. By that very definition "Flux", "Close To Me" and "Hate Me" have a direct correlation with the album's promotion as they impact on its commercial performance. If we went purely by record labels (who are not an independent source), then we would have all sorts of situations were songs are singles and vice versa depending on the POV trying to be pushed. The debate comes down to what is factually a single (i.e. behaves like one) versus what the record label wish to identify as a single - as wikipedia we should be going with the former and sticking to what is factual rather than getting bogged down in the technicality of label politics. That's my two cents anyway. Finally, its worth saying that I'm not interested in edit warring on the article but if you're going to claim it was discussed and decided at the talkpage, its worth making sure there's actually a consensus first. ≫ Lil-Unique1-{ Talk }-16:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Law and Order SVU (Season 21 Poster).png
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Law and Order SVU (Season 21 Poster).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hey Livelikemusic, I have a question since I know you’ve been editing music articles for years now you might be able to answer this question. So a few days ago I was editing Tupac’s album certifications in the US. Several of his albums have been certified Platinum meaning sold 1M units and Gold meaning sold 500K units. All of the albums have the main source coming from the official RIAA website itself, but several editors are following a different source. 2Pacalypse Now is an example as you see on his “Certifications” table you will see his album is said to be certified Gold in the US by the RIAA source, but there’s also another source claiming it has sold over 900K units. Which source is supposed to be followed? I always saw it as following the official RIAA source since it’s the actual company that certifies albums. I’m sorta in a sticky pickle with a few other users, some are saying to follow the other source and not the actual source from the RIAA. Which again I always had assumed to follow the RIAA source since it’s the actual company to certify the albums and to actually know the proper amount of sales. Hope all is well with you as well
Pillowdelight (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pillowdelight: Hello! Hope you are doing well. Unfortunately, I am not as educated in album certifications/charts as other editors may or may not be. However, from my own experience in seeing other articles, I believe it is best to await for the Recording Industry Association of America (a.k.a. RIAA), as they are the ones who certify releases. I am unfamiliar with XXL Magazine's reliability, however, they also do not seem to cite anyone, such as the RIAA or even Billboard magazine, both of which would be the more reliable of sources, per Wikipedia. A quick look at Wikipedia:Record charts (via Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums), it states: Certifications should be sourced directly to certifying agencies, most of which provide a searchable database. When such a database is not available, other reliable sources may be used, but they must directly state that the certifying agency has granted the certification. Many popular press articles will contain statements such as "... has gone gold ..." or "... has gone platinum ..." based on a sales figure, when, in fact, the certifying agency has not yet verified those sales and granted a certification., which, in theory, would be we must following the RIAA. I hope this helps you out on your editing journey concerning the late Tupac Shakur. livelikemusic(TALK!)19:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have blocked the IP you reported at WP:RFPP. However, I'm not convinced this is vandalism, as the IP was exhibiting the same behaviour for each edit, always removing information about her personal life, relationships and children, not all of which was particularly well sourced. It sounds more like someone who knows her taking an exception to the information and trying to remove it - this fits the behaviour of editing anonymously using a mobile phone. In this case, I think shouting "vandalism!" is actually unhelpful. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: I have to disagree — I added three reliable sources — The Daily Telegraph, Marie Claire and KNBC, and the anonymous editor continues to cite their edits as "Fixed typo !" or "Not important !" Not to mention, the location targeted from both IPs are from Michigan. This personal clearly does not know her, especially given that all three of those sources cite Chisholm's official website in their reporting of her daughter's birth. In addition, she has also discussed her daughter, in multiple occasions, on television interviews (such as this interview, which aired two-days ago). This, to me, seems a "fan" trying to WP:CENSOR this information, however, with the information now being sourced by three reliable sources of three different types of media, I find it highly unlikely this is someone acting on behalf of Chisholm (which would be a WP:COI). livelikemusic(TALK!)12:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now we have some more information and a complete lack of communication, this does now sound like somebody just being a pain in the neck. I have therefore semi-protected the article for three months, escalating from previously. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, um, can you show me where on Soap Opera Digest it says that Dominic Zamprogna is back full-time? I looked on the Soap Opera Digest article online and there was no indication that he was back full time. However, before you get upset with me, I did not undo your edits on Dante Falconeri's page. I just want to know where you saw that he was back for good.
Plus, I try my best to edit on here and almost every time I do my edits are always undone and redone differently. Sorry for not meeting Wikipedia standards :( Mysterious459 (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Kelly Clarkson – Invincible (Residency Poster).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
For having the rare trait of remaining cool when explaining the same policies, especially the verifiability policy, to new users over and over again, often without tailwind and in parallel. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
